Airlines Sell 5 Billion Plane Ticket Records To the Government For Warrantless Searching (404media.co)
- Reference: 0179264982
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/15/1850226/airlines-sell-5-billion-plane-ticket-records-to-the-government-for-warrantless-searching
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/airlines-sell-5-billion-plane-ticket-records-to-the-government-for-warrantless-searching/
> A data broker owned by the country's major airlines, including American Airlines, United and Delta, is [1]selling access to five billion plane ticketing records to the government for warrantless searching and monitoring of peoples' movements, including by the FBI, Secret Service, ICE, and many other agencies, according to a new contract and other records reviewed by 404 Media.
>
> The contract provides new insight into the scale of the sale of passengers' data by the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), the airlines-owned data broker. The contract shows ARC's data includes information related to more than 270 carriers and is sourced through more than 12,800 travel agencies. ARC has previously told the government to not reveal to the public where this passenger data came from, which includes peoples' names, full flight itineraries, and financial details.
>
> "Americans' privacy rights shouldn't depend on whether they bought their tickets directly from the airline or via a travel agency. ARC's sale of data to U.S. government agencies is yet another example of why Congress needs to close the data broker loophole by passing my bipartisan bill, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act," Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media in a statement.
[1] https://www.404media.co/airlines-sell-5-billion-plane-ticket-records-to-the-government-for-warrantless-searching/
If you voted for Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
You voted for this. The Democrats have long since started curtailing these abuses because they are extremely unpopular with their base of minority, specifically black and latino, voters. For obvious reasons since over policeing is basically wrecking their communities.
This kind of tough on crime bullshit would evaporate overnight if Trump voters would focus on their pocketbooks instead of whatever crazy ass moral panic they're supposed to be afraid of today.
Again the Democrats are objectively better for the economy and for your pocketbook. That is not a point anyone can argue in good faith.
The thing is if you want to sell your house and all your possessions and give that money to Trump go ahead. But for fuck sakes stop trying to make me do it. Stop dragging me into your fucking cult.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been going on long before Trump. The only difference is that previously some third party company would buy the data and provide this service to law enforcement. The only difference here is that there's no middleman and the government is buying the data to process directly.
The ultimate problem is that while there are certain things the government cannot do or data it cannot collect without a warrant, there's nothing preventing private companies from collecting the same data. In many cases there a
Read my post again (Score:2)
Yeah if you go back into the early to mid-90s you will find Democrats doing this kind of tough on crime bullshit.
Similarly there's some of it right after 9/11 that the democrats got on board with.
In both cases the public was in the throes of a major moral panic and demanded it.
If the Democrats have a flaw it's that when the public wants something stupid they will give it to 'em.
But when the public calms the fuck down they will gradually start undoing the stupid shit the public demanded they
Re: (Score:1)
Let us not make light of the fact that the fucking Vice President just today has said "no unity" and basically siccing people against their perceived enemies to get people fired. The VP has sanctioned cancel culture.
So if you think you're on the right side of this issue remember now your rights come down to the competence of people like Kash Patel and the 3 weeks of training the ICE guy arresting you provides or the interpretation of your social media by Laura Loomer. Good luck!
They are actively engaging in stochastic terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump wants to seize power and put himself in as a dictator so he's hoping for a nice scary violent event like an assassination against a republican US senator or something like it that would let him declare martial law and suspend elections. He is probably not going to get it but that's what he's after.
Economically the Republican party has nothing to offer voters and that has become exceedingly clear. The Republican party today favors high taxes on anyone who has less than 100 million cash in the bank and high prices to pay for all that using a national sales tax.
When your economic policies are that dumb and that destructive you need to keep everyone in a perpetual state of fear.
It's why Russia is doomed. Their birthright keeps going down because they treat people like shit but they can't get immigrants because they need intense xenophobia and racism in order to keep people willing to accept those terrible living conditions.
At this point I think the majority of Republican voters know all this but the closer they get to election and the more of the right wing propaganda they consume they just can't help themselves anymore. Their eyes glaze over their brains turn off and they vote Republican.
Hitler proved propaganda works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but that is horseshit. Over many decades Democrats have done nothing. The reality is this is a whole industry in a country which gives not one iota of a fuck about the privacy of citizens.
Other countries have been passing privacy laws for 30+ years now while both sides of US politics looked on.
I have friends and family alive today (Score:3, Informative)
Because of laws the Democrats passed that the Republicans fought tooth and nail against. So you can go fuck yourself when it comes to saying the Democrats did nothing.
You don't know anything about America or American history. I would accuse you of being a foreigner but I know fellow Americans don't have a fucking clue so who knows...
Go look up the contract with america. That was newt gingrich's name for the systematic process of derailing anything that would help you as an American and then using th
Delusional partisanship (Score:2)
> I have friends and family alive today Because of laws the Democrats passed that the Republicans fought tooth and nail against.
What laws would that be?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The affordable Care act comes to mind but there is a whole slew of other less well-known laws.
They're also a ton of Labor protection laws the Democrats pushed through.
And without the free and open Internet created by section 230 of the CDA which the Democrats have consistently defended I wouldn't have the job that let me pay for my kids to go to college.
And of course there's the whole thing with the Republicans keep trying to crash the economy and would have made me and several of my friends hom
Re: (Score:2)
What I find so amazing, is you take some dude who was mentally ill, or snapped, or some shit- and shot a motherfucker.
That motherfucker directly attacked this person verbally, while advocating for the removal of their rights and other fun things. Fucking constantly.
And you blame those who called that behavior detestable, or called him a fascist, for the kid snapping. Not the dude that was attacking him and his.
Your lack of self-awareness is truly fucking incredible.
This is what protecting your rights
Re: (Score:2)
> That motherfucker directly attacked this person verbally
Did he attack him directly or verbally? These are not the same thing. Words have meaning and that meaning matter when we discussing shooting someone in the neck.
Re: (Score:2)
> Did he attack him directly or verbally? These are not the same thing.
Incorrect.
Attack does not confer physical or nonphysical meaning. You know the answer to your rhetorical question, even if you're ignorant of the definition of the words you're wielding.
> Words have meaning and that meaning matter when we discussing shooting someone in the neck.
Indeed. Which is why I'm not going to let you whitewash dude's daily attack posture as nothing.
You bitch about people calling him a fascist, while he openly said shit like this:
> The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
> The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
> We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
> Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
However, if someone were to shoot him in
Re: (Score:2)
> Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
> However, if someone were to shoot him in the neck for threatening his rights... well,
You are 100% certified delusional and a danger to society if you believe that spoken words of criticism in any form or shape justify shooting someone in the neck to death. You do understand that at some point people on the right will start shooting back, don't you?
More so, none of the quotes you provided raise to the level of a threat by any reasonable interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
> You are 100% certified delusional and a danger to society if you believe that spoken words of criticism in any form or shape justify shooting someone in the neck to death.
Nice try, piece of shit.
I didn't say that in the slightest.
I said the fucker who got shot advocated for it.
The quote that immediately follows that is Charlie Kirk's.
> You do understand that at some point people on the right will start shooting back, don't you?
This is exactly what I'd expect of someone like you. So steeped in partisanship your brain has gone to mush.
Right-wingers have been shooting for a while now- you just fucking ignored it.
This political violence isn't new. It's merely escalating. And "right-wingers" are just as eager to play.
> More so, none of the quotes you provided raise to the level of a threat by any reasonable interpretation.
They sure the fuck do- a threat to take away one's
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly are you saying then:
> Nobody should get shot in the neck for talking shit. Not even for threatening to steal someones rights.
> However, if someone were to shoot him in the neck for threatening his rights... well,
Well what?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying quite simply- don't blame everyone around you when you coach people to solve attacks on their rights with fucking guns. , and then attack their fucking rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, stupid people are stupid. News at 11.
The the fucker engaged in dialogue with the people he openly demonized does not mean he didn't demonize them, you stupid fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
> The affordable Care act comes to mind
Please explain to me how ACA saved you relative's life as you originally claimed. Were they uninsured before ACA? If so why?
> And without the free and open Internet created by section 230...
> And this is before we talk about all the clean Air stuff.
Thank you clarifying that your delusional partisanship is in play. I am not even going to ask why you think Section 230 saved your family members, I simply do not care why you believe such bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite sure the ACA has saved a fucking shitton of lives- how could it not? It insured literal actual millions of people who simply did not go to the doctor until they were dying.
Let us suppose that you're not a stupid person. As a not-stupid-person, how in the fuck could you not derive that for yourself?
The real point that you were trying to make, of course, is your not-so-subtle implication that those dirty lazy people didn't deserve health insurance.
That's a value judgement, and I didn't come
Re: (Score:2)
The original claim that ACA saved rsliver's friends and family lives. If that was the actual case, there would be factual account of how and why.
> The real point that you were trying to make, of course, is your not-so-subtle implication that those dirty lazy people didn't deserve health insurance.
The real point you failed to address, of course, is that Democratic policies are in general made life more miserable and expensive for everyone, even if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident. This is largely because Democrats in general and rabid leftists like you in particular are not friends with logic and reason, instead choosing to emote
Re: (Score:2)
> The original claim that ACA saved rsliver's friends and family lives. If that was the actual case, there would be factual account of how and why.
Nonsense. That's personal information and frankly none of your business.
The point is, it's so fucking plausible to not be worth questioning.
> The real point you failed to address, of course, is that Democratic policies are in general made life more miserable and expensive for everyone, even if it happened to save some lives somewhere, perhaps by accident. This is largely because Democrats in general and rabid leftists like you in particular are not friends with logic and reason, instead choosing to emote your way into counterproductive and often harmful action.
lol- you fucking moron.
I'm called a Trump supporter, a leftist, a communist and a fascist on this site.
What I really am, is not a partisan dumbshit like you.
The population does better under Democrats. This is a fact. It's been studies so much at this point that denying it can only be called funny. At least be clever and say something like, "Those Democratic governm
Re: (Score:2)
> Nonsense. That's personal information and frankly none of your business.
You don't get to bring that up unprompted and then play "this is personal" to get out of justifying what was claimed. More so, the question can easily be addressed categorically, without naming people and events.
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't get to bring that up unprompted and then play "this is personal" to get out of justifying what was claimed.
Sure one does.
It holds exactly as much weight either way- an anecdote of dubious origin.
This is rsilvergun after all, someone who is fond of calling me a right-wing nutjob.
> More so, the question can easily be addressed categorically, without naming people and events.
Sure it can- but frankly, that's none of your fucking business.
The claim isn't remotely controversial, so why ask for details? I think you just want to force him somewhere he won't go so that you can point and say, "ha! See? The sky isn't blue after all!"
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie Sanders has always voted against the Patriot Act.
Edward Snowden would like a word (Score:5, Informative)
These abuses didn't start with Trump. [1]The US Government has been mining citizen data long before Trump got his hands on the White House [wikipedia.org]. Edward Snowden taught us that much. Don't tell me you've forgotten about [2]PRISM [wikipedia.org] already.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
Yeah about that (Score:2)
Edward Snowden accomplished Jack and shit.
He didn't tell us anything anyone didn't already know. He just found some documents that confirmed things and we all just ignored them anyway.
Meanwhile the Democrats had been slowly chipping away at the government powers seized during the wake of 9/11 when guys like you were shitting bricks demanding protection from the big bad scary terrorists.
In the wake of 9/11 the Democrats could do basically fuck and all to prevent people panicking so much they hand
The uniparty (Score:2)
> You voted for this.
Please present your case that Harris administration would have been different on this issue.
Re:If you voted for Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Oh please, the Democrats are horrible with this too. It's been going on since the 1990s.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats aren't curtailing any such abuse of power. Stop lying.
One more step for the Deep State (Score:2)
This is yet one more step that la Presidenta and his minders, Project 2025, are taking to promote their deep state. Mmmmmm, yummy.....more information on Americans and anyone else's records they can get their hands on.
Double Nothingburger, extra cheese. (Score:2)
Airline ticketing information got shared?
Perhaps I’d be more outraged, if not for the emails, text message receipts, digital confirmations, ticketing apps, credit card auditing, banking auditing, FAA auditing, TSA auditing, and the rest of the 100% digital reservation and traveling process being one massive unending paper trail, in a society that practically begs for every bit of that privacy-raping “convenience”. As if anyone could fly in the US today and keep it some kind of secret.
Let
Re: (Score:1)
But our government doesn't need to know every single data point about our lives. They have obviously weaponized the DOJ and just about every other government agency to make life hell for anyone that isn't a white GOP member of the cult in good standing. It should scare everyone!
This news item... (Score:3)
This news item gives new meaning to: "Hi, I'm Pam, fly me."
[1]https://rarehistoricalphotos.c... [rarehistoricalphotos.com]
JoshK.
[1] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/fly-me-ad-campaign-photos/
TSA? (Score:2)
Don't they already have this data?
1. When you make a reservation, the airline sends your name to a Government server, to ask it if you are on the secret No-Fly list.
2. In order to board your flight, you present your boarding pass and ID to the federal police (TSA) who validate and record the event.
3. A hundred other related items are in fused data.
What exactly did they buy that they didn't already know?
Re: (Score:2)
TFS: "includes ... financial details".
US politics oppresses you (Score:2)
The Democratic Party illustrates that end-stage capitalism is bad and needs to be regulated. The party of 'small government' then votes that government and capitalists can (combine forces and) do whatever the fuck they want.
[1]https://bsky.app/profile/jimco... [bsky.app]
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/jimcook.bsky.social/post/3lysmfgwoo22q
Ridiculous (Score:2)
99.9% of people whose travel is business or personal is devoid of criminal activity and any legal justification for a warrant. Passengers are already screened by a watch list, TSA on sight, and any combination of law enforcement agency tactics deemed necessary. Last week in Las Vegas, it was drug dogs walking though a screenning area that only 2 passengers were allowed through at a time. Your body is scanned while you raise your arms in a humiliating posture in a booth, then scanned further if deemed nevesa
And... (Score:2)
That's why I now drive everywhere, even when going coast-to-coast (Usually takes 3 days, but I've done it in 56 hours. I don't recommend driving 24 hours, sleeping 8 hours, and driving 24 hours, but I've done it. Once.)
Re: (Score:1)
And how many times do you use your credit card on that trip or pass a number plate scanning camera. Bet you a months pay if they wanted they could see just as much information from your trip.
Re: And... (Score:2)
Why though?
While I also object to this as a matter of principal, I genuinely wouldn't care if my government knew I flew across the country. Assuming you aren't doing something dodgy, you're putting yourself though some major inconvenience to deny them a datapoint that is actually if no use to them anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
main problem is that "dodgy" is subject to constant and retroactive reinterpretation.
imagine in 10 years some hyper environmentalists come to power and they decide to fine or cancel people they deem responsible for global warming. So they look wherever they can. Flight records are one place.
ridiculous ?
for decades IRS records were off limits to law enforcement of any sort (afaik) and certainly for immigration enforcement.
come 2025 Now suddenly at the snap of a a finger all that is being used for ICE enf
Re: (Score:3)
> imagine in 10 years some hyper environmentalists come to power and they decide to fine or cancel people they deem responsible for global warming. So they look wherever they can. Flight records are one place.
> ridiculous ?
Yes, ridiculous. Punishment for crimes that weren't crimes at the time (ex post facto) is prohibited in Article 1 of your constitution.
For what's still worth.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to imagine that at some level- that data already exists within the Federal Government.
You don't get onto a commercial flight without passing a TSA checkpoint, where you are catalogued by the nice man you hand your ID to.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh we've all already been tracked there as well and your driving movements have even less protections. Most of our mundane driving trips are already or going to be logged in a database as well.
[1]Breaking The Creepy AI in Police Cameras [youtube.com]
Also this video is just very interesting from an engineering perspective if you have not seen it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=1454s